134411-im-sure-the-server-admins-screamed
Content ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- (from experience) Also they probably got half of the requested resources due to PFB's thinking they are overreacting :blink: | |} ---- ---- The same amount of people trying to log in today too. | |} ---- Actually, it's more a case of diminishing marketing returns-- Is it worth adding more resources to cope with launch day that's going to bog down anyway, versus the cost of actually adding the servers to do so? People listen to the tech guy, contrary to popular belief, then make a costs analysis decision. Here, it's probably not worth the return to devote another server cluster to demand that will level out sooner or later. It just makes a really bad first impression if you judge it wrong. | |} ---- ---- PFB's listen to the tech ... thinks its over reacting, make cost analysis on the 50% of the requred resources, presents nice profit projection to the upper management, gets a rise and blames tech for the fail while they are working 24/7 trying to put out fires in the server room. And times where one was needed to physically plug and setup separate servers to add capacity are long gone, now one can rent whatever CPU/RAM/HDD troughput/BW needed, even in the case of the local farm there are setups where one can simply hot-plug additional (rented) nodes and bring them online without any downtime for the duration of the peak. | |} ---- To this, I only have one thing to say: "Shit costs money." You're absolutely right fom a technical standpoint, but we're already talking about a title that couldn't cut it as a sub and money doesn't grow on trees. F2P is the least advantageous profit structure that a developer can avail themselves to-- After all, nobody has to pay. All of a sudden me being able to add (rent) another node for peak times becomes a very narrow cost-versus-return tightrope. Edited October 1, 2015 by Mulletproof | |} ---- So, its more cost-effective to loose potential users and get yet another wave of bad reviews than investing some resources in the short term. Typical, let's save some (relatively small) amount of money to look good to the upper management while killing the user base on the other hand. True, F2P model require large number of players to work considering percentage of the ones which will use the RMT store so alienating user base is the worst thing to do. In the WS current state every lost customer cost a lot of more money than any resources will. | |} ---- ---- Hey, I'm not the one making policy or even voicing my opinion. It's just the way the cupcake rolls. But to answer your question, yes, somebody is making a return on investment decision that the cost of adding more server resources will be more detrimental than the (hopefully) short term damage not being able to access the game creates. Engineer: glass built 100% over spec. :D Edited October 2, 2015 by Mulletproof | |} ----